Mexico’s Marriage Contracts

Not too many innovations come out of Mexico’s ruling white elite, but this legislation seems to fit the bill.

The left-leaning assembly is studying a new initiative to introduce temporary marriage licenses that would expire after two years if the couple so desires.

The proposal, intended to reduce the bureaucratic costs and emotional toll of divorce, has garnered as many fans as foes: Some see it as a pragmatic alternative, while others, including the Roman Catholic Church, see it as an attack on family values. It comes as Mexico grapples with its own culture war in the world’s second-largest Catholic country. […]

To its authors, the proposal reflects social changes in Mexico City, where they say most divorces occur in the first two years. If after two years, couples decide to [stay married] until “death do us part,” they can renew their licenses. If not, the proposal specifies how children and property are handled.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” Leonel Luna, the assemblyman who co-wrote the bill, told Reuters. “You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce.”

Divorce is now woven into the cultural fabric of most modern and modernizing nations. It’s entrenched, and while rates seem to be leveling off in the US, there is no indication that lifelong marital vows are making a comeback. In fact, the lower, and later, rates of first marriage are likely the primary cause of the leveling of the divorce rate: with fewer couples getting hitched, and fewer still getting hitched at a young age when options are highest and instability is greatest, there are fewer bad marriages coming to fruition and boosting the divorce rate. Selection bias.

The marriage contract is a last-ditch attempt to address the ill effects of the divorce culture, and it may be a lifesaver for Western men who have been getting the ass ramming end of divorce court since the 1970s. Wifey drifting away and implicitly threatening you with theft of your house and half your savings? Just opt out when the two year contract hits its renewal date. Marriage still going strong (i.e., wifey still gobbling your knob)? Renew, baby! For another two.

I even wonder whether children would suffer any more under a marriage contract system than the no-fault, female rape-y one we have now. If you’ve got a couple of kids and you’re on your second marital renewal at four years, is the amicable opting out of the marriage any worse than the rending of a surprise divorce? Naysayers may argue that marriage contracts encourage abandonment, but I dunno about that. It’s a good bet that societal shaming mechanisms would organically come into place that limit the ease with which spouses turn to leaving contracts. And it’s kind of like abortion: when you know you have that option to end the marriage after two years, you are probably more likely to be relaxed (read: more alpha, sexier) with your partner and therefore more inclined to do the exact opposite of behaving in a way that the contract system is designed to mitigate.

Like this:

Related

219 Responses

What I want to know is what the child support is like under this proposed two year Mexican system. Also property division. Also I have the impression that if the couple does decide to renew their vows, that it’s then mean to be marriage for life, or anyway a formal divorce as per now in Mexico would be required to exit the marriage.

In Mexico you marriage a perosn under one of the following regimes: a) common assets; b) split assets.
If you marry someone on ‘common assets’ in case of divorce the assets are split 50-50, and if the couple had children, child support is ordered by the judge. Alimony is granted just under some conditions. For example if you marry a woman who has a job or who had a job most of the time she was married to you, no alimony is granted. If she didn´t have a job, alimony is granted in a proportional time the marriage lasted.
If you marry someone under ‘split assets’, in case of divorce, every divorcee keeps his/her assets he/she had before getting married and/or the assets he/she generated during the marriage period. Alimony is granted only if one of the parts didn´t have an income for a long period of time. Child support is granted too. Even though this regime has existed for about 80 years, it’s only in the last 30 years that has become very popular in the upper clases, and some addendums to the marriage contracts are being introduced stating from the beginning what the assets of every part are.
In any case alimony and child support are not by far the kind of deals American women get in the USA. Three years ago, a Mexican soccer player who is known for getting about US$3’000,000 in income every year was suit before a family court to increase the child support for one of his children. His ex wife argued that cost of living has increased and that the child needed more means by her father. A settlement was reached out of court. The guy now has to pay about $35,000 a month (US$3,000) and he had to pay about US$25,000 in legal fees.

Then, if it’s a one-time no-fault opt out near the beginning, Catholics can be assuaged because all they did is mainstream the idea of annulments. But it would make more sense to do it at the one year point, no?

“Also I have the impression that if the couple does decide to renew their vows, that it’s then mean to be marriage for life, or anyway a formal divorce as per now in Mexico would be required to exit the marriage”

I don’t think this is nuking marriage. It may not be ideal, but it is a step away from current divorce law problems. Creating a Flat/Fair Tax, in place of the current progressive income tax, isn’t as good as abolishing the IRS and Federal reserve. Yet it would be better.

As was mentioned above, this will help create a form of abundance mentality in the man, which makes him more attractive. It also stops the woman from thinking she can use the divorce option, forcing her to behave better. And as one acts, so one becomes. The more often she acts like a good wife, the more it will cement that attitude in her personality. If she spends two years being a traditional feminine partner to her husband, (because if she doesn’t he will probably terminate the contract) it will likely become her norm.

Again, not perfect, but the fact that it was even proposed is positive.

The concept of marriage: I don’t trust myself to be able to stay with this person, and I ask for help from all of society to keep a close watch on me and to force me, even if against my will, to stay with her and to only fuck her.

Oh, and I want society to implement massive punishments against me should I prefer death to spending another minute with my hellhound wife.

Marriage is this and nothing but this: an institutionalize lack of foresight.

The reality is…Marriage as it’s currently practiced in the West, has nothing to do with the “institution” thereof. It’s a purely Civil matter- and it’s transformed into this ass-rape institution where the man who foolishly signs up for it stands a really good chance of having his life ruined for the rest of it by the woman. Don’t tell me that I don’t know about it. I’ve LIVED it- still am right at the moment and will until next month. There is nothing about marriage that you think there should be- that institution is DEAD. Not even the Christians are backing it with any more than a half-hearted nod to it. Most Churches will say the woman’s justified in more cases than you care to own up to- perhaps not publicly, but… And, again…don’t tell me that it’s not true, as I’ve seen it happen time and time again. Sadly, this is an IMPROVEMENT.

There was some science fiction book I read a number of years ago — the title and author eludes me but I think it might have been Jack McDevitt — where the idea of a marital contract that expires naturally every year was brought up a few times.

The problem with marriage isn’t the contractual nature (which, by definition, it has always been), nor the religious nature, but the fact that government can and will change the terms of the contract without warning or recourse.

Even if the US would adopt sunsetting marriage agreements, you know the shyster lawyers would find a way to trample on the ideals and find ways to extract their incomes.

Don’t forget that Mexico and California have a treaty under which, if an American gets a Mexican pregnant in her own country, he must pay exactly the amount of child support that he would have to pay a California woman, notwithstanding the idea that this might make the girl practically a millionaire in her hometown in Mexico.

The feminists wanted to make sure California men didn’t start looking at Mexican women as less of a risk to have sex with. That’s generally what motivates them always when they say they have “solidarity” with any other women.

It’s one more reason for a man not to be a California resident.

But I understand that the fems are trying to make this a general international treaty (between the US and every other nation).

I don’t know if it has or has not caused gold-digging Mexican girls to try to have unprotected sex with men from California.

There can be no treaty between a Sovereign Nation and one of the several States of this Union. Anything there could be challenged on the legality and go down in flames if the person so chose. Seriously. Only the US may have a Treaty with Mexico. Better come up with the goods on such a Treaty, or I’m calling BULLSHIT on this one.

What you’ve failed to grasp is that feminists can legislate however they like regardless of whether their laws are constitutional under the US Constitution, the UN Convention on Human Rights, “International Law”, common law or natural law.

That’s because male politicians everywhere are weak-kneed in the face of the female/mangina/white knighter vote.

Laws that give the US government jurisdiction over the behavior of males anywhere on Earth, regardless of their citizenship? Sure. No problem.

Treaties between US States and foreign countries like Mexico? Sure. No problem. Just call them “agreements”.

See in today’s world, in any relationship between a man and a woman, the only thing that gives a man any sort power is his ability to walk away. It is his only leverage to ensure that his partner treats him well. When this leverage is taken away, a man essentially has no power in the relationship.

In a conventional marriage, a man has NO power because his ability to walk away has been removed. Despite his wishes to walk away, he will always be in some way (usually financially) responsible for the woman.

These temp marriage contracts give men more power in their relationships. When the prison sentence is up, if his warden of a wife wasn’t the sweet little thing she pretended to be to get marriage, she gets kicked to the curb and receives nothing.

It does not matter that you think your woman is the nicest, sweetest, most pure human being since Mary, mother of Christ. She’s a human being, and that means she’s equally capable of committing the worst crimes in humanity. Understand that the threat of abandonment is the is the ONLY thing that keeps a woman’s worst behavior in check. It forces her to be responsible, or lose her relationship with a man. Nothing else will do.

Understand that the threat of abandonment is the is the ONLY thing that keeps a woman’s worst behavior in check. It forces her to be responsible, or lose her relationship with a man. Nothing else will do.

Those of us raised in North America and this wonderful Anglosphere don’t have that benefit. We are the fallout children of the most self-indulgent, most toxic, and most unhealthy culture that has been known to exist. My generation has never known a “stable” family structure, so it’s not as though we’ve got anything to refer to on having a healthy relationship.

Add in a culture of male hatred, laws that give women every single advantage possible in any situation, and you’ll recognize that women hold almost all the cards.

There are no HEALTHY committed relationship left in this dying western world as the structure in which one can have a healthy committed relationship has been blown to shit..

The only power left to a man is his ability to choose to leave. He cannot hit, abuse, rape, or make financially reliant. He cannot keep her bonded to him until death do them part. He has no authority he can go to should his women turn against him.

This is not about perfectly HEALTHY relationships. This is about a man looking out for his own mental, financial, and physical well being first, while still being able to engage women in relationships. Because quite frankly, as men, we already know that at least once a month the ‘gina tingles hit, and should you choose to cheat you’ll keep it secret enough from us that we’ll never find out, (and depending on your rationalization hamster, may not even acknowledge as having had committed adultery). Such is the nature of hypergamy, and no amount of alpha-ness on a man’s part can ever keep a woman’s hypergamy in check 100% of the time.

As per your above comment. Good behaviour is always rewarded. As long as you don’t fuck up, you won’t get abandoned. Fuck up, and your ass is on the curb. It’s a pretty simple formula that helps minimize your incentive for stabbing me in the back when the next slightly more alpha dude rounds the corner and you jump on his cock.

I’d say that’s a whole lot more healthy on everyone’s part than tolerating one iota of bad toxic behaviour from a woman.

I’m not so sure this is a step in the right direction. Although I think women will be on their better and best behavior in a two year marriage that ends rather than a permanent marriage, I think men will be too. Men may act in a nicer more beta way in a two year marriage too just like they do in a more permanent marriage. I do happen think that both men and women will be on better behavior in a two year marriage than a permanent marriage. The problem is that I think women will act more like their better selves than men do in a two year marriage just like they do during engagements before marriage. The problem starts when there is property to divide, possibly alimony to pay, and children to support. Then the man gets screwed.

Show me a first world nation where women don’t file or initiate most of the divorces. American women file 70% of the divorces and South Korean Women file 65% of the divorces for example. Why couldn’t women just say I’m not happy with the marriage at the end of the two year marriage? They can say it and let the marriage end. At least with divorce, women will act viciously before a “permanent” marriage ends, and men can see it coming even if they can do little to nothing about it. Under a two yeart marriage, a man may never see the end coming, and I predict significantly fewer will. Again the devil is in the details about property division, alimony and child support.

I can’t think of a good reason for men not to protect themselves in other ways. I can’t think why men would want marriage or children which will only be used as weapons against him should the relationship with the woman go badly. I’m even skeptical of having a woman live with me as a man because of Violence Agaisnt Women Act, and this is with a place in which I own or rent. If she co-owns or rents with me on a lease then she can’t even be removed from my property. Even if I rent or own it, she can still ruin my owned or rented property.

Women should thank themselves for supporting vicious feminist laws against men. They have turned themselves into little more than ejaculation recepticles for men because of them as the default position for any sane wise man in the First World including the USA. Many women aren’t even worth ejaculating into for sport sex. Prior to 1965 women had the better deal even if it needed reform and improvemet. I could have told women that their vicious feminist laws and ideas would eventually turn out badly for them, and not to do it. I genuinely do wish women better, but until they wish and do better for themselves and men, they don’t deserve anything other than to be treated as ejaculation recepticles at best and ignored at worst. MEN, why bother with marriage, siring children or even supporting children who are not yours and possibly letting women live with you as it is a bad idea to do so?

I miss the times when the Chateau posts used to be about game. I don’t like feminism, it’s pointless at the best and disgusting at the worst… but it’s all this place talks about now. Please, get back to talking about game. It’s much more useful, enjoyable and feels better on the field.

I was 14 by the time my parents married. They could have split at any time if they wanted. I never thought about it and nobody cared. In effect, they were using this sort of system before it was cool.

Except, they did it without the legislation constantly hanging over our heads. It would be far better to avoid putting any obligations on non-married couples, kids and property or no. That way everyone can choose the life that fits them best. Freedom with a wife who trusts you and stays because she wants, or marriage.

And, that’s what it used to be, marriage, that is. What we call marriage in the West is an institution created by the Romans back before they took Christianity on and it was brought in and actually adulterated the Christian religion when they took Christianity as their religion. It used to be something closer to what you talk to there, Rus.

Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant. Anything less and it is not marriage. It’s playing house. There are few true marriages today.

You don’t need to make marriage easier to dissolve. You need to make it harder, if not impossible.

You don’t give beta-idiots a hundred chances to unfuck their life-changing mistakes. You counsel them out of beta behavior before they make their mistake. Giving retards a thousand do-overs is like getting the cheat code to a game for unlimited lives. It doesn’t help them get better at (the) game, it helps them get lazier and bring even more stupidity upon their situation.

Easy divorce creates disrespect for the institution of marriage, and disrespect creates a climate of adultery, and a climate of adultery creates the rule of hypergamy. If we’re talking about real solutions to the decadence, then marriage has to be rehabilitated. If we’re talking about ramping up the chaos — to make it an easier environment for alpha-mimics — then keep chipping away at the institution.

Easy divorce creates disrespect for the institution of marriage, and disrespect creates a climate of adultery, and a climate of adultery creates the rule of hypergamy.

Completely ass backwards. Hard divorce creates adultery.

#1. It gives them a license to commit adultery. If divorce is, or is next to impossible to get, fuck you. (not you personally) I’m going to have 3 or 4 “sideline” pieces. What are you going to do about it? Get a divorce? Bwahahahaha. It’s impossible, remember?
Just look back during the 30’s – 60’s especially regarding Catholics.
(Since the church would excommunicate a person who got a divorce)
Yeah, people stayed married. They also got as much strange as they ever had.

#2. If someone can’t get out of a dead marriage, they WILL get laid somewhere else. And you cannot physically chain someone to a house. NOTHING will keep someone where they don’t want to be. Be it male OR female. So they are still married. BFD.

Ex: The party that walks out moves six states away. They can’t get married because they are still married. So you have penalized them.
Problem is, you have ALSO penalized the person that didn’t walk out.
THEY can’t move on with their life all the while the person that walked out HAS moved on with their life minus getting married.

Trust me, if I could fuck over my ex-cunts that way, I’d stick that “knife” in and twist it until it broke off in a fucking heartbeat.

By harder he seems to have meant not allowing couples to marry so freely. But this implies all sorts of social controls our kind left behind a long time ago. We would have to revert or really convert to a completely other mating system, one nearer that of the Near East and India, to achieve this. Then other things which many here cherish would wither away in recompense.

Don’t compare catholics of yore with your fucked up anglo protestants. The cases you describe were a minority (15%-25% of all marriages) while in your protestant populations disfunction was always the norm. It`s not a coincidence that Sexual Revolution and Feminism the greatest Shit test in human history came from the Anglosphere, not from Europe or anywhere elese.

Hard divorce creates adultery. It gives them a license to commit adultery. If divorce is, or is next to impossible to get, fuck you. (not you personally) I’m going to have 3 or 4 “sideline” pieces. What are you going to do about it? Get a divorce?

By “easy divorce” I mean “no fault divorce,” which means it is initiated by either party for any reason. The incentive against adultery can never be just be tied to the contract of the marriage — if so it would be a virtual opt-out clause. It must be enforced by general mores outside of marriage.

What is she “going to do about” your adultery in a “hard divorce” regime? Initiate the divorce and take your shit. You have just made “hard” into “easy.” Even in a hard-divorce system, your hanky panky has make the “fault” easy to discern by disinterested parties.

Look, there are two approaches to contract enforcement: cooperative and adversarial. You can force performance on a party-turned-adversary within the letter of the contract. But your apocalyptic pessimism ignores the initial cooperation that is the genesis of every contract ever willingly signed. People don’t ever say “I do” with the expectation of divorce. That expectation is a product of the ease of the out-clause: if me sneezing on her is grounds for divorce, then I’d be stupid not to consider it likely. On the other hand, if nothing short of death, crime, or adultery is grounds for divorce, Bridezillas wouldn’t go into it so lightly to begin with, and the Sword of Damocles hanging over her chumpsband’s head would be nullified. If she can’t up and leave with 50%+ of his assets at the word boo, her power to materially threaten him is diminished.

Your understanding of marriage is feminism-derived. Yes, marriage creates adultery because you can’t have adultery without marriage in the same way you can’t have an abortion without pregnancy: a couple doesn’t go through fertility treatments with the expectation of carving the kid out with a scalpel three months later. People who tend to say “fuck you” and “Bwahahahaha” at a person’s misfortune tend not to marry that person. What turns marriage sour enough to call her a “cunt” and to fantasize about sticking a “knife” in her “and twist[ing] it until it broke off in a fucking heartbeat” has everything to do with the raw deal of feminist marriage, which is dependent by definition on no-fault divorce.

Marriage is not supposed to be a “raw deal” for either party and only has become one because of the imbalance between the sexes, an imbalance insisted by the shrieking shrikes of feminism. The deal used to be “Wives, submit to your husbands” in exchange for his material and social commitment. He is the king of his castle, and his genetic line is protected from the secret adulteration of cuckoldry not just through her complete dependence on his income but also through the Scarlet Letter shame of outside condemnation. Will some whores persist through all the disincentives? Of course. Will some men still not take the deal? Yes. But it will remain an attractive arrangement for most men in the middle, rather than the legalized shaftery of modern feminist marriage.

In this climate, it’s not difficult to imagine women tolerating (if not exactly enjoying) men having “much strange” on the side. Wives should have fewer opt-out possibilities than men because men are giving up more. We flipped this workable formula on its head in the late 20th century, and in the process, turned civilization on its head. No wonder you can’t imagine marriage apart from a raw deal — we are slowly losing all living memory of when it was a good deal. “Divorcée” should be a term of opprobrium on par with “bastard,” as it used to be.

In these days, Marriage is a contract. Seriously. If it was a covenant, why would you need a Divorce proceeding, hm? Now, if you want a Covenant instead, don’t marry- just hold the Covenant. God’ll understand.

It was societal values that undermined marriage, not visa-versa. The older generations didn’t stay married because of the divorce laws, they did it because they would have faced universal condemnation from family, friends, the church, etc.

The only way I can see marriage surviving as institution if someone invented an asecular, SWPL-friendly take on “traditional marriage” and marketed the hell out it of through woman’s media (Oprah, Facebook, etc) This would have to be accompanied by a total rethink of women’s careers, child care, etc. (Something like “You CAN be a stay at home mom!”) There might also need to be an implicit dominant/submissive sexual aspect to it as well.

Fat chance of anything like that happening, but it would be more effective than after-the-fact social conservative and MRA bitching.

betadyerface wrote: “The only way I can see marriage surviving as institution…”

I love this short-sighted extrapolation of all trends to infinity, as if whatever you observe happening now must inevitably continue in a straight line to its extreme conclusion.

Marriage will survive; it’s society that will fail (is failing). The degenerate societies that have jettisoned marriage will collapse around the vacuum. Marriage is the irreducible atom of community, in every time and every place. Thinking marriage won’t survive is like imagining a body can survive even though its cells are dead. Zombie sociology.

When the ideologues’ experimentation has fucked up enough people, the ideologies are abandoned, not the permanent and naturally occurring institutions that spring up spontaneously through human interaction. One of those requirements for civilized community derives from the urge for reproduction, because immediately following that urge comes the need to contain our instincts into some workable arrangement that keeps the peace among jealous men.

The question isn’t whether marriage will survive. The question is in what form it will survive. Now’s your chance to speak up! Some monument will be rebuilt in the ruins after the last ancient building crumbles. What do you prefer? The casual cohabitation of feminist delusion? Pack dynamics of powerful men and their harems? Structured polygamy? Extended families built around the nucleus of one couple?

At some point you have to think beyond what personally gratifies you in a landscape that is quickly changing and imagine what sustainable tradeoffs will be tolerated by society. Alpha mimicry to bed 500 credulous/slutty women in your life is cool, until you get 500 organized betas coming after your balls. Which, sooner or later, will happen once the poison fog of feminism clears their brains. Betas are cowards with women, but not with other things, especially when they are backed into a corner.

Being frozen out of pussy gives a man a lot of time and energy to plot against you. This is a golden age we’re living in, before the former chumps organize in frustration. Enjoy it, but don’t be surprised when the mob gets around to feeding you your own testicles. If you haven’t been confronted in your pick-up career by jealousies, you’re obviously not living large enough. Now imagine protective fathers teaming up with jilted betas and cuckolds to take out their smoldering anger on the most proximate source of their humiliation — i.e., you. Marriage will return in the space of a generation, or we will be replaced by cultural immigrants who didn’t contracept themselves out of a genetic future, bringing with them the source of their demographic power, the traditions of structured reproduction and child-rearing.

The form marriage will take is not clear in all its specifics, but one thing is certain: feminist marriage, and its ugly stepsister “no-fault divorce,” contains within them the seeds of their own destruction, and cannot continue. True, this form of “marriage” — the one you’ve been convinced by Betty Friedan is the only possibility — won’t “surviv[e] as an institution.”

Life shouldn’t be a challenge? This tells us all we need to know about what kind of man you are.

If you derive pleasure from cheating a video game into pseudo-victory, it tells us what kind of gamer you are. But to wish you could extrapolate that cheat into ill-gotten gains for your actual life!

Men who have worked and achieved know that the satisfaction derives from earning the prize, not the cheap plastic plaque upon which the prize is proclaimed. We therefore must assume you are a person of low achievement operating on fantasies of what it’s like at the top.

If this is purely a convenience arrangement for the tax feeding classes in Mexico City, it may well be picked up by similar populations elsewhere. If it does indeed gain traction in a formerly Catholic country, it is simply a stark reminder that Catholicism in it’s contemporary, Latin expression, has failed.

In Mexico, as well as in most of Latin America, it is also becoming very obvious that the nation state has largely failed. They can no longer lay claim to exclusive use of punitive levels of force, hence are reduced to just one amongst many gangs with guns.

With both traditional pillars of Latin American societies gone, something else will fill in the void; inevitably. There are limits to how long people are going to sit back, content to be in the crossfire between bands of narcos, and bands of US equipped progtards, all with guns.

My money would be on Islam gaining ground in these countries. Their socioeconomic structures bear much stronger semblance to societies where Political Islam is gaining ground, than to the decaying progressive dystopias that would cheer on the kind of legalistic approaches to marriage the law mentioned represents.

Islam ain’t so bad, at least from a survivability point of view, which is really all that matters. If the Catholic Church is no longer able to perform it’s traditional job, something else will have to take it’s place. Most pretenders to the throne will turn out to be little more than, as you point out, cults; while Islamic missionaries have been, and are, very successful in similar circumstances from Africa to Asia to Europe. Even against the backdrop of seemingly rapid economic growth in China, Islam is gaining converts in many places.

For sure, if I was a Muslim with a missionary zeal, I would look to Latin America for converts. Even as a non Muslim, it is hard to deny that Islam has an awful lot to offer the displaced of the world; including a prebuilt “legal” code (Sharia) that is at least “fair”, even if at times seemingly harsh and a bit crude.

Most pretenders to the throne will turn out to be little more than, as you point out, cults; while Islamic missionaries have been, and are, very successful in similar circumstances from Africa to Asia to Europe.

I don’t get it. What’s the difference between any religion and a cult? Is it that the cults are smaller and less successful?

He he. That’s a interesting use of language then! It’s a cult until everyone joins it.

In a system governed by evolutionary selection, growing big and standing the test of time, is a pretty good indicator of fitness. The major world religions, by virtue of simply being just that, likely imbue their adherents with traits that aid in their survival. At least until a religion incorporate too many tenets of secular progressivism, something it looks as if the Catholic Church is about to demonstrate.

What happens is that structured catholicism doesn`t exist anymore. Either in Latin America or in Europe. True catholics are just a remnant, the rest are heathens that pretend to be catholics. The clowns in the Vatican would have been excommunicated a mere century ago, that just shows how low that institution sunk (or was sunk) The void will first be filled by ignorant protestant hillbillies, later by atheists (now most of the intelegentisia is godless in practice) and later it could by Islam in certain parts and a return to the heathen gods of yore in Indian majority populations.

The last part is my humble opinion. The first three sentences are facts.

Those hillbillies, atheists and heathens better toughen up, judging by results of either group clashing with Islam in recent history. Doubly so if resource constraints gets tighter (peak oil), and triply so since the Muslim side looks likely to enjoy the most support from those few enclaves who might actually benefit from Peak Oil.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Marriage is on the downswing anyway, so this could be a way to salvage some of the people who are considering marriage in the first place. It also might make more women realize that getting fat, not putting out, and generally being a bitch won’t fly anymore. There will now be consequences other than divorce-mediated ass raping of the guy. At the very worst, you can always take the advice that has been coming out of the Chateau: Don’t get married.

speaking of contracts, men are getting closer and closer to absolutely NEEDING consent forms on them when they’re out having casual sex. The laws are more and more slanting toward women being able to call rape any time they get moody and the legislation favoring them.

I’m all for nuking the institution of marriage. Let’s rebuild it from the ground up.

Last night my old lady was due home in an hour and was starting to call on all the mobile devices and home line. I said to the young massage therapist from a luxury spa, who had wanted to see my place and drink a bottle of wine, “We’ve got to get you out of here. She might get home early.” I then said “Pity, because I’d wanted to give you $50 for a really good massage”. She then said “Strip down to your undies and lie down on your bed and I’ll give you a good one quickly”. She then proceeded to give me a normal massage until I directly took her hand and placed it where I wanted it. She tried to prove twice that she wasn’t for sale that way by going back to the regular massage, but after I did that the third time she got the message on how things were going to proceed and things happened fast after that. Ten minutes later I stood up and said “We’ve got to get you out of this apartment quickly” and she was on her way without a shower and took the pizza box and wine bottle with her.

I had paid to speed things up at a record pace and with 20 minutes to spare before the old lady got home 15 minutes early (with me getting out of the shower).

Well, as for Brazil, divorce here was quite uncommon until the 80s-90s. Then I saw an old soap opera from the 90s in which one of the main characters, a female, was going through a dilemma: her husband disappeared and was most likely dead (I think it was some sort of accident) and she didn’t knew if she should marry again.

Divorce was quite uncommon here (and probably that’s the case of Mexico) because of catholicism, a religion that loathes second marriages. The funny thing is that the case in the soap opera is very likely to be acceptable among the religious authorities, but the mere ressemblance with the divorce was enough to make a whole history about it.

My guess is that all nations will eventually just default to soft polygamy and spread your seed Alpha male behavior. Like the Black US community or West Africa. The only kicker is global financial collapse, and welfare state failure, putting a premium on beta males who stick around (and who will in turn demand only the best women, those young, semi-virginal, and pretty and intelligent).

It may like a car warranty. The day after the 2 years is up,she starts becoming a fat bitch. HIM:”hey honey,wanna fuck?” HER:”Oh yes dear–hey whats that ringing?” HIM:”Oh that is the church bells,dearest one. It’s midnite!” HER:”Its midnite? You know what-I gotta fucking headache! Im gonna grab some of these twinkies and watch ‘Eat Pray Love’. What about the fucking garage,you said you were going to paint it,and I need new furniture,you never buy anything,you’re so cheap…” HIM:”Aye yi yi yi yi!!!!”

Mexico’s other big marriage problem, like the rest of the Catholic world, is that couples are not allowed to divorce. What happens is that if the guy can swing it, is that he will start another family out of wedlock. The wife and kids of the first family get all the property and name while the second, third, fourth … families get boo. It is the “second wifes and their bastards” in Latin America that get the schaft.

In Mexico people are allowed to divorce. One of the pillars of Mexican State is the separation between State and Church. That the Mexican State is a complete fail these days is another question.

Even if many people here (I am one of these white mexicans alluded to in the post, although I don’t rule anything) are Catholic and boast being Catholic hey will do whatever they like… such as former president Fox, who won the election as a divorcee, then married divorcee Martha Sahagun… and then they both displayed being devout Catholics… this makes me sick, but that’s another topic.

It’s true many men DO NOT WANT to divorce their wife, as long as the wife is faithful and a good match for them, so they get a lower status lover, have children with her and keep her in a lower economic status (casa chica).

Changing topic again, some States in Mexico allow no-fault divorce, such as DF (where this 2-year idea is coming from). And again I see women divorcing out of shallowness and stupidity, such as their husbands not being caring, or the thrill being gone or whatever… sad!

Thank you for your response, mavala at least you know a lot more than “Profesor” Woland whom I guess has never travelled beyond Rio Grande and if he has hasn`t spend more than a few nights in hotels in Acapulco and thinks he knows the country. By the way I’m not Mexican.

Completely OT: but thought it might be helpful as visual analysis of beta and alpha behavior. Covers several of your posts in one video although I don’t necessarily agree with all of it/ think some things could have been explained better.

Until the day liberalism’s gut bursts from the lies its gluttonous anti-nature philosophy gorges upon, ’till its fetid corpse lie motionless in involuntary satiation, ’till its corpulent organs of propaganda dangle exposed, unable to recover from injury exacted by sinewy petards of reality, marriage will be a corrupt, feminized, institution; the unsuspecting husbandry being the victims of the corrupt bargain, with grinding, unlubricated, ass rape as the penalty for shortsightedness – the raping done byway of wooden dildo, with splinters, of course.

My good Heartiste, the more I ponder this issue, the more I tend to agree with your prognosis: Game is the panacea for all male/female arbitrage. It is the ultimate equalizer, as it educates men in viewing women as pleasure objects, while simultaneously teaching women that men are physical and emotional resource providers.

Without the entrenched wealth transfer machinations of western society, all wealth would be concentrated in the hands of competing groups of men. Women would thus be forced to pick between such teams for survival and fulfilment. The terms of this transaction would be quite balanced. The female would have to agree to the male team’s proposed sexual obligations, including restrictions such as monogamy, on demand sex (no “martial rape”), and mandatory child bearing.
For their part, the males would have to agree to a long term resource investment contract in the female’s interest, providing all material, security, and emotional needs. Such a contract would successfully leverage both male and female strengths, and ensure that all participants obtained the best market value for their individual worth.

Interestingly enough, the system I have described is how the majority of human society has been organized since the dawn of time. This spontaneous market dynamic for male/female value exchange is precisely what lead to civilization’s great successes. It is important to note that in this market, there were no governing rules aside from those enforced by powerful entities, which is why we have so many examples of individuals reneging on their contractual obligations. The abuse of power is an emergent phenomenon when one obtains asymmetrical leverage upon one’s competitors. Extremely powerful males and extremely beautiful females have provided us with countless examples of this throughout history.

FYI, The institution of marriage is already toast. As more men realize it’s a totally raw deal it’s going to slowly fade away. Of course as the younger feminists age they will eventually try to coerce men into marriage by pushing a “bachelor tax”. There is historical precedent for this.

So, how are children and property are handled in this Mexican temp contract? Are me automatically screwed? The details could make it an even worse option.

Try to let the weight of that sink in. I’ve never understood the concept of marriage.

Every time I hear someone talk of the importance of lifetime monogamy contracts, it’s like I’m hearing a martian speak of the value of his weird martian music. The music does nothing for me, emotionally, and I can only strain to understand that it does something for him.

I hear of talk of how society really needs us to do this. Think of the children. And this and that hampsterization about why the sky will fall down unless we all fall in line with the sexual strategy of the sexual-socialists. One man, one vagina – for life! Or else god won’t suck your dick when you die, and all your children will be thugs and prostitutes and you’ll die alone and your life will have no meaning and you’ll feel empty and soulless and you’ll never know the deep pleasures of getting your ass wiped by your wife when you are 87 years old and senile!

All of it just slides right past me, and I still have no idea what people are talking about.

Marriage? Marriage?!!!

Why the fuck would anybody ever get married?!

Just stay with whoever you are with as long as that makes you happy. That’s it. Simple.

Maybe the fact that you’ve “never understood the concept” is more about you than it is about the concept.

Sociology derived from personal experiences = the groundwork for the triumph feminism and Marxism. “The Personal is the Political.”

But we sympathize with your plight. There, there, daddy really does love you. That’s why he had to leave mommy. He wasn’t about to “fall in line with the sexual strategy of the sexual-socialists,” no sir.

You’re argument would be stronger if you called me a pedophile and insinuated that my girlfriend was a whore.

You’re slipping.

Very often you don’t say anything, King. Just a lot of bluster. If you disagree with anything I say, you’re not to the point about it, so I can’t tell what it is. Just vague hand waving and moralizing and quoting old poets. Try a little logic and direct to the point logical confrontation.

You dissimulate and go on and on without saying anything. It’s got to the point where I rarely even read your comments when they are a direct reply to me.

I think you think you’re smart ass remarks about me smoking dope are actual arguments. Who are you trying to convince, anyway? Me? Obviously not. I’m aware of I smoke pot or not. Obviously you are trying to sway the crowd with your emoting and insinuations. So if you are not trying to address me, then don’t.

I have to imagine that people marry out of fear. Women want lifetime provisioning, and understand that they’ll need to lock the man down to stay with her for reasons other than her smoking hot young body. Men want to lock the woman down, and keep her for reasons other than him being able to maintain her sexual interest under the pressure of other potential suitors.

That’s just fear and poverty mentality speaking. If you had any sort of confidence in your ability to continually attract suitable mates throughout your life, you’d not need to lock your mate down by force of contract. Women, of course, need to do so. They get old and ugly and not as useful as a loving trade in. But men? Why?

Why why why why why why why?

Fear and an inbred instinct. Yes, I said it – instinct. It’s by now a behavioral instinct for some men to get married. It’s biological.

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got ‘tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,–legitimate!

You cannot fathom the need for institutions above your pay grade. You only understand what obstacles inexplicably stand in the way of your own repulsive and self-annihilating groin-itches. Leave the civic big-think to us and go rub your pathetic little pecker against every teenager you can score while the men go about rebuilding the walls around your romper room. You possess the frustrations of Edmund the Illegitimate in King Lear, if none of the eloquence to express it:

Marriage and the shaming of extramarital sex (cf. obsolete curse words: adulteress, fornicator, whore, bastard) together form the container for unlimited female desires, known to gamers as “hypergamy.” Rousseau in chapter 5 of Emile articulates these desires best, and Milton in Paradise Lost most bluntly. The institution — and sacrament — is required not just for the stable development of the next generation’s citizens by, y’know, the very persons who made the children and therefore have a preternatural bond with them. It is also required for the legitimacy of lineage.

Male fornication (sex outside of marriage) was never considered nearly as calamitous as female fornication, which had its own special term — “adultery.” Adultery originally applied to married women only, because her duplicitous fornication was potentially much more consequential than her husband’s. She alone could “adulterate” the lineage by cuckolding her husband, who would unwittingly raise another man’s child under his name and deliver his inheritance illegitimately to a bastard.

There is a reason why game has defined the two male types around the exploiters of hypergamy (alpha) and the victims of hypergamy (beta): you all proclaim the two essential kinds of man in this classification scheme, defined solely in their relation to the hypergamous woman, Type A or Type B.

There is a reason why Chateau Heartiste considers cuckolding the equivalent of rape.

Strictly enforced parameters of marriage are the solution to irreducible hypergamy. Laws against adultery have little force in comparison to cultural pressure (cf. The Scarlet Letter). Did you think the organic development of marriage in every culture in history was a random accident? Hypergamy is the dissolving agent of civic bonds. Either it is neutralized with extreme prejudice and without remorse, or nothing in civilization works.

The latter-day dissolution of marriage is the eye of the hurricane, a space of relative calm before the destruction resumes. It is not new, despite the red herring of new technology, it is a part of the moral cycle of freedom, decadence, destruction, and rebirth. The solution cannot be to presume this peace is sustainable, nor imagine the jealousies of human nature can be eliminated by pharmacology (the Pill for her, Prozac and Viagra for him), nor to fantasize that any civil society you would recognize is possible without a robust enforcement of marriage.

There is a reason why gamesters mock the sham of feminist marriage. What we call “marriage” today is the residue of a once legitimate institution that has ceased its functionality despite maintaining an official appearance, with nothing but a raw deal for men. That’s because marriage is an invention to protect men from the ravages of hypergamy having lately been perverted into protecting only women from the consequences of indulging their hypergamy.

The solution requires a recovery of the original, abiding purpose of marriage, and the all-important recovery of intramarital game (see Athol Kay and his book/blog “Married Man Sex Life”), to keep women from skanking on their natural hypergamous instinct through direct male command while the shame of promiscuity is revived in the culture, which will in turn give assistance to our sons controlling their wives’ destructive impulses. A control they ache for, by the way.

Right now, male fornication has been artificially equalized with female adultery on the basis of ideology. But nature dictates that men fucking around does not have 1/10th the social or psychological consequences of women fucking around, no matter what brain-dead egalitarians assert. We are living out their error.

You have no understanding of, nor taste for, what a continuation of civilization requires. That’s okay: the culture can tolerate the occasional subway masturbator; as long as the rest of us don’t mistake his perverted mumblings as somehow a legitimate critique of society; as you seem mistake about your own crabbed observations and half-baked assertions.

Impassioned and articulate as usual. Yet I wish to propose a disquieting possibility: what if the great majority of the world’s citizenry are not required for the advancement of civilization?

We are quickly approaching an event horizon with technological progress. Technology is providing ever increasing leverage to the most talented individuals. These modern day heroes, whether they be artists, scientists or innovators, can increasingly do the work of thousands of individual workers. The days are long gone when a company requires hordes of employees for mundane, repetitive grunt work. There is no more fitting example than SpaceX, a company that has advanced space travel more in a decade than every government program since the Apollo project. They have reduced the cost of orbital transportation by an order of magnitude, a task deemed impossible until they publicly released their pricing plan (an unprecedented move for an aerospace company). How many people did this herculean task require? Fifteen hundred. How many were required for the Apollo program? Half a million.

You may say that the masses must be protected from their vices, else they will succumb to hedonism and sink the titanic of civilization. Yet one must never underestimate the power of modern day bread and circus, and the government’s willingness to provide it. Hedonism in all its forms is undoubtedly the opium of western society today, and it has the firm backing of government. As long as the people are subdued, they will not have the will to mount a notable resistance. In the event that a few muster the necessary courage to act, they will be crushed swiftly by the omnipotent state. We see this with the Occupy Wall St. movement and all of its substituents.

This is the disturbing reality we face today. More than ever before, we are pawns on the grand chess board of heroes. Power and success is a winner-take-all game, where the most talented dominate while the runner up is delegated to peon status. The omnipotence of state apparatuses ensure that no uprising is possible, and no alternate forms of societal organization ever materialize. There is no new frontier, no new world for us to colonize, and thus no opportunity to reset the legislative momentum of the state behemoth.

A fate far worse than death for we who wish to transcend our base instincts. Nay my dear friend, we are doomed to live among nihilistic hedonists who aspire to nothing and have no vision of a better future.

Go ahead then, K.A: fulfill your Christian duty; do the Lord’s work by marrying and demonstrating your inherent, God-given masculinity to your wife, who will thereby be transformed into a dutiful, loyal helpmeet worthy of the finest Biblical heroines.

But the rest of us, who have no desire to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of Christian Duty by marrying and risking the (almost inevitable) assraping in divorce court, have one thing to say to you.

Fuck off.

You’d do well to watch “There Will Be Blood.” Pay close heed to the scene where Plainview has Eli repeat the following: “I am a false prophet, and God is a superstition.”

Now march yourself down to the nearest Family Court courtroom Monday morning and repeat that phrase over and over as you watch the consequences — to the men, anyway — of their having gotten married. I want you to do this, now, and then report back to us on what you’ve learned.

You’d do well to watch “There Will Be Blood.” Pay close heed to the scene where Plainview has Eli repeat the following: “I am a false prophet, and God is a superstition.”

Yeah, your theology of pop-culture references doesn’t impress me. “God is a superstition”! If only they emphasized that in catechism class, how much more metal we’d all be. I’m drinking your milkshake. Want to see my bowling alley?

Go ahead then, K.A: fulfill your Christian duty; do the Lord’s work by marrying and demonstrating your inherent, God-given masculinity to your wife, who will thereby be transformed into a dutiful, loyal helpmeet worthy of the finest Biblical heroines.

I never said nor implied anywhere that it is one’s “Christian duty” much less “the Lord’s work” to get married in a climate wherein what goes by the name of “marriage” is a feminist trap unworthy of the sacrament. I am rather for “heightening the contradictions” (if you are on the left) or “immanentizing the eschaton” (if you are on the right). I am for exposing beyond all doubt what consequences certain dishonest and malicious ideologies ultimately create in the innocent generations thereafter. I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!

Fuck away, freaks. Rub your pathetic peckers up against as many slits as will have it, and declare yourselves Alphas of the Pack. Gather ye clit-buds while ye may. What do I care?

Or get married and cuckolded, chumps. Proceed in the delusion of marriage as it ought to be, and when you figure out you’ve been lied to, try not to take out your frustrations on me in the post office. Again, I don’t care.

It’s your life, your soul, your cowardly attempts at leading a good life. You stew in the sauce of your own decisions. I neither add to nor subtract from the recipe.

The principles are abiding but everyone’s circumstances are unique. Maybe you’ve never seen a virtuous woman, much less met one, much less had an opportunity to court one. I’d think they were unicorns if I were you too. I can’t convince you it is possible they exist any more than I could persuade a smug know-it-all that black swans are real, till he saw one. Maybe women worthy of the name don’t exist in your trailer town, Clevelandsuburb, or junior college campus. Your options might be limited indeed, you might be surrounded by ultra-attainable sluts and unattainable virtuous women, who by definition never visited (much less became trapped on) the cock-carousel around which you make all your judgments. But don’t assume we’re all living your life of self-fulfilling prophesy. I am not begrudging you for making the best of what you got. I am simply stating there is more in the world than your stunted understanding of sexual commerce.

There is another way. You can get all the female attention you can handle, you can avoid the snares of feminism, and you can see a way out of the sexual chaos to better circumstances for everyone involved, even for those (like you) who don’t deserve deliverance. You don’t have to be an atheist, nor do you have to be debilitatingly pussocentric to practice game at the highest levels. The coincidences of a certain lifestyle with the renaissance of manliness begun in the Pick-Up Arts are just that — coincidental — and everyone will see this when the game community completes their inevitable progress toward maturity. It was necessary for fratboys and incontinent nymphomaniacs to inaugurate the Dark Arts because theirs were the laboratory conditions where a verboten culture could thrive. With its strength gathered, these arts are ready to debut on a bigger stage, and traditionalist-purists who only see game’s application one way are slowly transforming into whiny, obsolescing, petulant, and geriatric hangers-on. I am their sometime Kervorkian.

What I do works. But I’m not sure if average shmoes have what it takes to pull it off. God bless the infinitely patient tutor Heartiste for providing the omegaest among you with a path to salvation! What I do, however, is not easily duplicated nor expressed. It requires a firm understanding of the grand scheme of things and one’s place in it; traits woefully deficient among this semi-educated, self-esteem-besotted, dolt generation.

So I don’t advocate that you do what I do or believe what I believe — ignorance is its own punishment, and the rotten fruit of your labors will be harvested soon enough with or without my laughing at you. I am only here to testify that I exist, and your faggy little categories are cute in their own way but not sufficient, and certainly not the substitute for an argument against the possibility of my existence. Somewhere above your paygrade we discuss matters that are not relevant to you and your worm-eye view of the world.

It’s an annoying side-effect of this mission to have to deal fourth-rate thinkers with burrs up your asses like you. I can only write what I write and represent myself clearly enough for careful readers to understand what I advocate. Ninety percent of you predictable jagoffs trip over one keyword and assume the rest. He mentions God! He must be X, Y, and Z! Whatevs. I’ve given up hoping for intellectual kismet, for someone who is on my wavelength. At this point I’m Diogenes and his daylight lantern, just looking for someone with basic reading comprehension.

Very interesting and well thought post. It seems to suggests that those not interested in marriage or procreation do not understand it’s importance to society. While that is possible in some cases it is not in all cases. You make very clear that marriage today is a raw deal. This would put the interests of the individual man at odds with the interests of society’s continuation via procreation. An understanding that an individual would choose their best interests over effective martyrdom for the continuation of civilization appears to be lost in the post.

Woof wrote: “An understanding that an individual would choose their best interests over effective martyrdom for the continuation of civilization appears to be lost in the post.”

We are all engaged in the slow-motion “martyrdom” toward something. We all have an end-point, we all will die after spending our limited resources on some goal or other, whether meaning to or not, whether conscious of what impels us or not.

Here’s the catch. Those who firmly believe they are “choos[ing] their best interests” are deluded by a teenage solipsism who imagine the universe is all about them. This is patently false, as the teenager discovers upon his first contact with life not going his way, but not until then. Aged teenagers will persist believing things are “going his way” — rather than face the input of reality, he will rearrange his entire interpretation of life, even! — despite all evidence to the contrary in order to preserve his solipsism. He was given no other philosophy.

Your purpose in life is to give yourself up to a “cause greater than your own self-interest.” It takes years of rebellion before you suffer into this wisdom. Meanwhile, military men who die for their brothers, people who give to charity, women who sacrifice careers and health and youthful beauty to raise children (like, perhaps, your mother) — these people already intuit the meaning of life, a meaning which you fantasize can be opposed for a lifetime.

Oh, it can be resisted for sure. Just look at all the aging players (and repulsive cougars) who think they can import an early-twenties lifestyle into their sixties. Whether they have the ability to recognize it or not, I submit they are sorry, hollow men, with nothing to show for their lives. Those men are too invested in their delusion to honor a criticism of it, and young men are conditioned to think they’ll find the magic escape path from the way of all flesh. On this site the delusions run the gamut, from magical technological solutions to disregarding the ravages of age to plain ignoring the horror of one’s mortality. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Does this mean you “martyr” yourself to modern marriage? Hell, no! If you are going to spend the mighty resource of your “self-interest,” you spend it on something worthy. Unfortunately we are living through an accident, we were born in an age when the awesome worthiness of raising exemplary men and virtuous women is tied to the cinder-block of feminist marriage, pulling all but the strongest swimmers down to their drowning.

Game helps release a man from his individual cinder block individually. But a man looks out for his brothers, too. It’s why I bother addressing you people who are — rather than looking to rebuild — entranced by despair and committed to a personal flame-out amid the ruins. My rhetoric isn’t stronger than your will to self-destruction and self-regarding meaninglessness, so don’t mistake this for a crusade. Live and let die. I only speak because there are young men who weren’t born into the millennial frame of hopelessness, who may yet be reached.

I am addressing the young. I otherwise only address pesky, toothless dogs to beat them down for barking and howling in their senescent despair. Like the young girls who are exposed to the cancerous ideology of feminism, the men of the generation coming up deserve to be free of their elders’ mistakes.

“What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” — Albert Pike

“Did you think the organic development of marriage in every culture in history was a random accident? Hypergamy is the dissolving agent of civic bonds. Either it is neutralized with extreme prejudice and without remorse, or nothing in civilization works.”

This is a caricaturization of “every culture” based on your classic socon cultural hegemony. Lots of cultures have done well with more free views of sexuality. In point of fact, the de facto ‘culture’ of humans, the basic operating system, that of the hunter-gatherer, has much freer sexual mores and much less worry about paternity. Paternity becomes a concern for the weak, debilitated men in agrarian cultures. They shrink in size, stature, in aggressiveness, in the ability to sire offspring. Native Americans, who averaged 5’11” for males were considered giants by the invading Europeans, whose men averaged a measly 5’4″.

Agriculturalism creates betas who have to struggle to sire children and thus are viciously concerned with mate-guarding and thusly wearly of false paternity. The tribalist religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are triplicate versions of the same shit, which is to say the (mal)adaptive strategies of agrarian societies attempting to deal with the piss-poor conditions they created by trading forest-dwelling hunter-gatherer cultures for the slash & burn agriculture, its rapid soil depletions, and the subsequent shift to pastoralism.

Most native hunter-gatherers have no such concerns of mate guarding & paternity. They exist in a state of reproductive abundance: Abundant seed, abundant women to sire their children. No worries about paternity, they can always sire more kids.

Seen from a gender advantage perspective, hunter-gatherer, sexually free societies favor men. This is a man’s world. Get your spear ready. Contrasted with the reduced potency of males in agrarian/pastoralist societies in which the females have advantage, and all three tribal cultures, islam, christianity & judaism, all attempt to externally regulate female sexuality by social shaming mechamisms. These mechanisms are draconian and inefficient, punishing alpha males and women, while attempting to coddle the betas.. The genie of female desire for alpha male power will not be stuffed back into that lame-ass cultural bottle.

We are entering an era of enlightened atavism; a return to the hunter-gatherer state where high-T, well-fed men, strong of mind, heart, and body, who live like hunter-gatherers, who spread their seed far & wide, who cavort with a variety of lively females irrespective of their marital or relationship status.

Such are the demands of the gene pool.

King A, you’d do well to read and comprehend Gorbachev’s advice, below:

” Don’t listen or heed the call to arms these conservatives will put out: ignore it.”

“Whenever some woman says – “Hey, I don’t like this random sex thing and you just fooling around and having other partners”, then you say:
“I am a feminist and I believe in emancipation of women. You should be free, not bound to any one man. You want to be someone’s property? You want some man to shame you because you just went to bed with me? No way. Be free! Free, baby!”

Freedom! Horrible freedom!

I say set the women free. Men: Stop trying to corral the women. We’ve lost control of the situation. The bonus when the cows get out of the pen is this:

You can stop giving a shit about the cows. Let them wander anywhere they want to go. You go and milk them wherever they are. Then you don’t need to worry about production quotas or whatever: You just take the milk you want and bail.

Fuck’em. They broke the deal.”

Like Kanye west said, there’s no church in the wild, and love is cursed by monogamy.

Some people even claim with a straight face that society will completely collapse back to the stone age unless men and women get back on track to lifetime monogamy. They don’t claim mild economic slowdown as men get less incentivized to get that masters degree to support a wife and children in style. No, we are going to forget how to produce ipods and power-plants and no one will go to work anymore. Yes, people try that hard to uphold their sexual strategy. The sky gods will smite your civilization, unless women stop leaving their beta husbands!

You’re like the New York Beta Times, who injects their inane opinions in news stories by prefacing them with “Critics say…” or “Some believe…” And they think we won’t notice.

Do you even know what a straw man is? Who specifically is making these “claim[s] with a straight face” now? Can you distinguish between actual people making actual arguments and the bogeymen in your mind?

I’m convinced either you get trained out of these habits of shoddy rhetoric in high school (or college at the latest), or they stick with a man for his entire life. And not only can the poorly trained individual never escape his habits once he reaches a certain age, he ceases to understand how they are fallacious, and further, becomes completely unaware when he is perpetrating them. You sad sack.

“…after two years to split or renew the license for life…” –> doesn’t this mean that if the couple decides to stay together after the first two years, the marriage becomes permanent?

If I read that correctly, the measure becomes irrelevant, as all it does is delay divorce, not prevent it. Besides, if divorce is the more profitable option, most profiteers would rather say yes the first time around and then wait a bit to divorce anyway.

If the marriage contract is a constant 2-year-relationship-status-check instead, my predictions would be…

Betas: Screwed. They’d go into uber-supplication mode to keep wifey from leaving. Nothing good would come out of that.

Higher betas – lesser alphas: The group that would benefit the most, as the wifey would be more likely to be in supplication mode.

I came up with that idea to make it like sports contracts. Have 5 year contracts where you can negotiate terms like splitting assets, children, and sex. Plus you can negotiate harsh restrictions on cheating. You can have options that automatically renew the contract if certain terms are met (financially, children, etc.).

Then after like 10 years, you can have a select few men and women representing their interests in collective bargaining talks. For example, Women bargain away their rights to alimony for higher penalties on male cheating. The possibilities are endless.

People who marry are not thinking. They are instincting. But that instinct can’t work anymore. Sure, people can still marry – but it’s not the same sort of marriage your grandparents had. Where is the division of labor? Where is the lifetime financial need of the wife? Where is the inability of the man to get sex outside of the marriage, or to easily find new mates in a society that is all permanently married up? Where is the social shaming for not being married? Where is the economic advantage at the office for married men? The reasons for the stability will for most marriages be gone. There is no reason for the contract at all – as you will need to create the emotional bonds to keep your mate anyway.

Nowadays the only real reason to stay together is because you want to.

I hoped the exchange above would shape up to be a real xsplat vs. King A brawl, and seriously I agree with you both, but the fact is you have your head in what is, while King A has his in what was and what ought to be. But was and ought are not real. Only what is, is real. Therefore you win by a mile, as this succinct summation proves neatly. The conditions being gone, the form is hollow, and what fills it is a dangerous stereotypy for men.

Obviously we diverge in our assessment over “what is … real” and which “conditions [are] gone” and which only appear to be obsolete. Fine. That happens. But I’m going one level deeper, Mr. Inception. I’m taking another red pill after taking the red pill, Mr. Matrix. I am prepared to discuss how to reconcile our divergent assessments and how to determine which of us have the better tools for authoritatively determining whose method is more reliable. Or “epistemology.”

When you’re ready to get epistemological — which xsplat clearly has no taste for getting, much less an ability to get — I’ll be prepared to explain how you can “seriously … agree with [us] both” while erroneously casting your faith with xsplat’s simple assertions about what’s real. In the meantime, your criticisms are destined to be random and probably ultimately indefensible.

I do not deny the nature of women. Neither do I acknowledge it beyond possibility of doubt. I am agnostic (“All I know is I know nothing” — Socrates) as any serious thinker must be about the ultimate things, but I also have an operating faith which I consciously deploy as faith to allow me to act and decide rather than be frozen in the ultimate ignorance of the human condition. That means I deduce from experience until demonstrated to be at folly, which your Tellin’ Me Like It Is ejaculations fail to accomplish. No shit women are hypergamous. Now what? I’m way ahead of you.

Hey, chump. You’re not the first person to attempt to mask his ignorance/incomprehension with bravado. I wasn’t addressing you for a reason.

I will address you this way: believing a concept to be nonsense because you don’t grasp it at first is the worst possible approach to aging. It freezes you in your current state and allows for no improvement. This is the worst thing about getting old. Forget about aging and no longer being able to do all you could as a young man. If you have retarded your own capacity for wisdom, you will have nothing as an old man.

Soporno is a fag. Half the women he poses with are porn stars. He comes off as pro woman to chicks because he plays the anti slut shaming card.

Of course even though he knows better, he conveniently forgets to mention that when society has no social controls on female sexuality that the hypergamous, sex abusing, beast goes crazy, and that the end result of female sexual empowerment is never the democratization of pussy.

Considering infidelity is the major cause of divorce, the solution is cheater loses…if the victim spouse can prove the other cheated, the cheater gets NOTHING but the clothes on their back when they leave divorce court. Cads and players, tramps and sluts, would not bother getting married in the first place, society would benefit, and there would be real consequences for crappy behavior.

“Considering infidelity is the major cause of divorce, the solution is cheater loses…if the victim spouse can prove the other cheated, the cheater gets NOTHING but the clothes on their back when they leave divorce court.”

Big F’N Deal. I got that the first time. IN a no fault, no alimony state. (Texas) I got the house, (AND the bills that go with keeping the house running on ONE salary instead of two), and she didn’t touch my 401(k).

She got to walk away from it all, (Electric bill, water, phone, property taxes) and shack up with the guy she was cheating with. (who already had a house)

Guess who came out of the deal with more of their paycheck intact?
(It wasn’t me)

It’s my opinion that consenting adults should be able to enter into any agreement that they choose whether I agree with it or not so long as I’m not paying for it and it doesn’t infringe on my own rights. So, on the one hand I’m not crazy about the idea of “temporary marriages” and wouldn’t do it myself but on the other I wish the State wasn’t involved in the regulation of marriage at all. Live and let live.

You raise an interesting question. Should I be allowed to use my free will to give over my free will? Should it be legal for me to volunteer to be a lifetime slave, forever unable to become emancipated?

Drunk on love, men hand over their autonomy and praise themselves of how righteous they are.

‘Tis hard overcoming the urge to possess long-term though. What all this amounts to is sexual nomadism. That would be fine if we were real nomads, but we are still sedentary, and tangible possession is the primary urge of the settled; the town built around the grain store is a living monument to tangible property.

I guess this is why the alphas who can afford it recommend a nomadic lifestyle. Roosh has it going.

Also, despite repeated imprecations to see the white race speedily perish of its self-loathing, I don’t actually wish to see my race go under, and that’s where this is tending. I don’t believe the miscegeny rate will level off or stop rising, so we will see more and more adulterated spawn in years to come as white men, alphas who can weather it and betas hung out to dry, are increasingly obsolete and bedeviled.

A great idea. Like all great ideas expect hundreds of millions of dollars / euros / pounds to be thrown ot fighting it, from a rearguard action by the greatest vested interest of all – the legal trade. They will have this like they will have needles in their eyes.

Frank Crummey is not a qualified lawyer but he has made, if not a fortune, a comfortable living from being a “legal executive” (I think ‘paralegal’ is the US equivalent term) specialising in “family law” (eg divorce rape of men). In his book “Crummey v Ireland”, Crummey describes how one woman, at the women’s shelter, sees him coming to the front door. “It’s a man”, she says. “That’s not a man, that’s Frank Crummey” says another woman. Crummey recounts being called not a real man in his memoir, as if it’s a boast.

I think it’s a great idea. Let’s face it, people who see marriage as a religious covenant will remain married while those with a more secular view are protected by the terms of the contract. No more divorce rape, and if your beloved objects then you my friend just dodged a bullet.

sucka my lostass cockas
let me go down on a showered cleaned pussyysysysys undllesss it is dat time of the month
let me watch beavis and mbutthed mnew on mtc new beavis on mtv lzozo
shut the FUCK up when i am palying gears of war and medal of honor

and then at the end of the day
if all this holds sway
we can reneew our ammariagege contract for tomorrow!!! !zpzpzpzp;z

I’m not a fan of this because it may solve the government’s problem with the paperwork and court cases, but I’m not seeing how it solves the overall problem of already high or increasing divorce rates. It looks like they are putting on a bandais to a gunshot wound. The real problem is the introduction of no fault divorce in the USA. I’m not sure if this is the case in Mexico, they may have fault or no fault divorce, but it doesn’t matter. I realize that we are not ridding ourselves in the USA of no fault divorce. What the USA should do is say that if you want to have no fault divorce and you file first, then you leave it behind. The house and the children are left behind to the spouse who remains. The spouse who leaves pays child support. The USA could also say that the married couple file jointly, but they have a plan on how they will divide and do things after the divorce. If a spouse leaves and doesn’t want to leave it all behind, then the spouse must prove fault in the spouse who remains behind to get anything. Fault should be similar to what would be considered fault in marriage prior to 1965 as a rule.

Even better, where’s the articles on unmarryable girls in their prime? Girls gone too wild to marry? You know, the bitches out there monetizing their looks from 18-28? That is, this is the real problem, not that women are “rising”, it’s that girls are the problem cause they spent their lives living low, they’re too career driver (allegedly ) or too big of a whore to get married when they could. And really, wtf? Some of us top 1% IQ guys were out building an income-skill base at that time so as to become the kind of guy that was allegedly the marrying type.

Boo hoo to the 35 year old whores trying to get married. I doubt there are any 25 year old girls out there lamenting the lack of good men. If a young, desireable girl in her 20’s wants to get married, then she could easily find a guy who is both successful and in-shape is his 30’s or 40’s.

“If a young, desireable girl in her 20′s wants to get married, then she could easily find a guy who is both successful and in-shape is his 30′s or 40′s”.

I don’t know if you’ve ever been a young “desireable” girl in her 20’s… but let me tell you it’s not a piece of cake. You usually spend a year proving to a 30 year old that you’re worth his time, and have enough intellect to sustain a conversation with him – at which point – by the time you’ve proved it to him, you’ve outgrown him. Let’s not make assertions on behalf of 20 year old women wanting to get married shall we? That’s like me saying absolutely ANY guy can pull of a monogamous relationship. Point being, it’s a ridiculous statement.

“Let’s not make assertions on behalf of 20 year old women wanting to get married shall we?…Point being, it’s a ridiculous statement.”

Generally speaking, women are not rational enough to rule out marriage. They will start to like the idea of marriage if they meet the right person, i.e someone alpha enough, and they will rule it out if they’re surrounded by betas.

“You usually spend a year proving to a 30 year old that you’re worth his time, and have enough intellect to sustain a conversation with him”

You overestimate the woman’s intellect effect on a alpha’s long-term attraction triggers.
Be kind, cheerful, and act like the beta males that you so despise.
Basically, alphas put a huge emphasis on paternity certainty. Being challenging and able to argue may work on you, but not the other way around. An argumentative bitch only projects this “I will trade you up the second someone better than you comes along” vibe.

All of this should be obvious to you by now, but I’m not impressed anymore by the ability of women to swim through oceans of knowledge and come out dry.

According to the article, I presume “boys” who play video games all day instead of finding a job to pay the bills with…
Not saying I agree with this article, merely pointing out the general argument it makes.

“This type of law makes me see a future in which we are not at war with the robots, but we are at war with men versus women in a final battle to the death.”
If you’ve. Even reading this blog for long, you may have realized that we already are. Men are losing.

berg wrote: “…we are at war with men versus women in a final battle to the death.”

Very perceptive, berg! Welcome to the war, nice of you to notice, we are indeed already involved in a battle to the death.

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

If I were you, I’d organize your sisters to sue for peace, because if there is one area that even feminists would concede men excel at, it is our capacity for war.

The game blogs and MRA grumblings are your early warning signs, a shot across the bow (look up what that phrase means, or ask your more martially minded brother). We have not yet begun to fight, and the cuckolds and chumps will fight with all the insane teenaged-male war-lust of a liberated slave, knowing that either his side wins or he is shackled again. In other words, you are subject to the mutually reinforcing disadvantages of nature, disposition, and incentive. It will be a short conflict.

I know when you think of fighting you get sad because it could have been avoided. So, fair warning: when men think of fighting they don’t sigh in regret at how savage we can be to each other. No, rather we are glad, ecstatic even. At last, something besides NFL games to vicariously fight for, something direct, something real!

In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage…

We are energized by the fight, and we look forward to it. The rage is still inchoate, but as you can see on the net within the space of a few years, it doesn’t take much to organize and channel men into an efficient force with the beat of a war-drum in the distance.

Did ye not hear it? — No; ’twas but the wind,
Or the car rattling o’er the stony street;
On with the dance! let joy be unconfined;
No sleep till morn, when youth and pleasure meet
To chase the glowing hours with flying feet.
But hark! — that heavy sound breaks in once more,
As if the clouds its echo would repeat;
And nearer, clearer, deadlier than before;
Arm! arm! it is — it is — the cannon’s opening roar!

Cry mercy, babydoll, before it’s too late. Right now we are just coming after your panties, and all else equal, you like the attention. Soon, though, we will turn our gaze to the bigger prizes, like your livelihood and your political rights and the storehouse of feminist-promised advantages you have come to take for granted. If you value any of those for your daughters, make nice now before we get properly riled up. For

What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore.

Dead Eye – There’s NO way that any kind of meaningful disassembly of the current immense bias towards women will EVER be dismantled. For someone who got hosed twice by divorce laws, I’m all for this Mexican Marriage Law. We didn’t have kids, the marriage lasted less than two years, but I still paid out the ass even when she was clearly at fault. Didn’t matter that I was right when innuendo is allowable in open court and actually taken as fact. If I’m ever to have a LTR with legal marriage, it would take this law in the US to make it happen.

There *is* a way, but everyone neglects to think of it. Total war between the great powers. It must and will come, and presently.

This ends the misrule of the female. There is no time for that fucking nonsense when serious countries like the US have sustained real damage from Chinese nuclear strikes.

Everything you hate will be gone when this great and good evil rains down. Remember what Travis said in the cab?

The single most vacuous idea that runs through our fat and bloated, uselessly endless peace, is the notion that war is over.

Weapons technology advances every day. Every day the serious male ability to kill becomes refined. When this ultimate purpose is engaged; when the young Chinese soldiers are raping some Japanese or Korean beauty with unimaginable glee, do you think anyone will give a shit about this chatter?

“Divorce?” “Marriage?” Please.–

It will be good when it all comes down, if only to see the double-death of the people we hate: the physical death of the “feminists” and the social marxist scum, and the sudden death of their inane planner’s fantasies.

When fire and death is everywhere, even on American soil, there is no more “gay marriage” or “lightbulb ban.”

“War is over,” in fact, when there aren’t any men to fight it. Then it becomes a walk. See once proud and warlike, now sissified Europe’s slow-motion capitulation to the crescent without a shot being fired. A K A the “encroaching heathenism of the half-moon.”

Well…. that makes sense. I have been to Mexico several times in my life… Speak fluent Spanish which helps to meet the nice girls selling cigarettes at the clubs…. plus they are eager to have blue eyed babies with the American man. Minimal game required…

Those Mexican girls are cute as hell when they are 18 and tight. But those corn tortillas catch up with them pretty quickly…. two years is about right!

Why bother.
Should one try to resurrect a rotting corpse, dress it up in clothing and pretend it is still alive? No.

I knew an old lady who used to freeze dry her dead Pomeranians, keep them stuffed and mounted in her garage, then, after a month or so with her recently deceased companion, buy a new one, and continue the cycle.

Until and unless all contracts are upheld as sacred, men and women are treated equally under the law, alimony is abolished, and parenting/child support responsibilities are split evenly as the default position, then stuff like this marriage contract are worse than exercises in futility, as they can trick men that would not otherwise get married into tying the knot.

So sad it has to come to this. We all know marriage benefits women a lot more than it benefits men. Men stand to lose a lot more from marriage, by virtue of it being lifelong monogamy, talk less of the threat of taking a major financial hit come divorce time. And with the divorce rates as high as they are now, an overwhelming majority of which being initiated by women, women tend to benefit more from that as well while men get the short end of the stick once again. That is shameful and a failure of society.

I still see the societal utility in marriage/long term committed partnership (although I question if it should even be a matter of state regulated law), but some of the risk that men assume must be alleviated and placed on the women in order to level out the playing field. Something will have to give soon enough and legislation similar to this in the west can assist in swinging the pendulum back. Ultimately, I feel this is a step in the right direction.

In Mexico, as well as in most of Latin America, it is also becoming very obvious that the nation state has largely failed. They can no longer lay claim to exclusive use of punitive levels of force, hence are reduced to just one amongst many gangs with guns.

The nation-state taxes me at 60% marginal rates and won’t offer protection against petty crime. Warlords would tax much less, would be disciplined by competing warlords and would shoot on spot the criminal class. Let the nation state die. A preview of that was offered when militias occupied some slums in Rio, and the results were awesome, though the Brazilian state is still powerful enough to crush them. The problem is how you make sure that things like electric power can flow to the big cities from damns around the country once central power is gone

With both traditional pillars of Latin American societies gone, something else will fill in the void; inevitably. There are limits to how long people are going to sit back, content to be in the crossfire between bands of narcos, and bands of US equipped progtards, all with guns

Americans will cry like hell whenever someone points this because Mexico can do no right, but drug problems in Mexico are the consequence of American consumption.

My money would be on Islam gaining ground in these countries.

Islam is losing ground even in Iran, it is a disfunctional religion for stupid men and ugly women. It would never conquer the lascivious lower classes of Latam nor the white upper classes. Are you a neocon by any sort? Neocons are used to finding muslims under their beds.

Read the comments of the various articles carefully. Yes, PUAs can say that both men in the two stories need to learn game.

But that’s not the real subtext here.

The real subtext is that many east coast American women, whose days of being attractive are extremely numbered and would already be over in most non-feminist countries (including the “stalking victims” of the two stories, the bloggers and journalists reporting it and many self-righteous commenters), are standing firm on the moral right of women to go into total radio silence with someone whom she just spent hours with and who she let pay for her dinner.

In the case of the JP Morgan banker stalker, the story has clearly been written with a lot of things left out as was noted by observant commenters. A girl moves to England to get away from a rich stalker banker boyfriend but he has the key to her apartment in England?

In the viral case of the aspy guy’s 3rd email after a first date, to which 33 year old “Lauren” never responded and chose to laugh about and publicize, here are some interesting exchanges in the comments:

blackrose on December 6th, 2011 at 1:15 pm:

wow! There is so much with this email that i do agree with. First if you are doing online dating and you see a picture that you like and you decide to meet him, you shouldn’t be thirty minutes late for the mere fact that if you had no interest to meet him in the first place you wouldn’t have agreed to meet. And as a woman that will keep it truthful yes woman play with their hair why because we are flirting for 90 percent of it and for the remaining 10 percent you can tell that we are nervous.. and or we do it out of habit. And to let a man pay for your dinner without any hesitation just two things… option 1 you are a gold digging bitch or option 2 you are thinking about well if you pay for dinner now.. the next time i will make you dinner or take you someone to pay it back. And to keep constant eye contact with someone is making an emotional bond with them.. If he wasn’t want you were looking for or you lost interest you are going to natural break eye contact for long periods of time. And then to talk about common likes in detail shows you are interested because you are going deeper on level with your likes.. If you didn’t have a serious enough interest in him.. you would have kept vague to show you don’t want him to know personal things about you. To show this man all of this and then to not even respond to him once is rude as hell. The least any human being can do is talk hell even text but nothing that’s torture . He deserved to at least get answer even if it was just i’m sorry i don’t want to see you again. At least then she would be civil and at least give mutual respect as a human being. i’m sorry for the length of this reply but i do feel like hes logic behind this email is warranted and valid and i believe that the email itself was necessary.

This kind woman’s comment actually prompted the following typically feminist American woman to go through the trouble to register at that site to say the following:

ambilextrous on December 7th, 2011 at 2:27 pm:

bobat and blackrose: you are absolutely delusional. This girl was obviously being polite on the date, but in her mind it didn’t go well. Being polite includes making eye contact. Playing with hair can mean you’re bored. It’s chivalrous for the man to pay, and in my experience this is expected on the east coast. In any case, if you read into the potentials and possibles and ignore the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the person is not into you, it’s your problem–with lack of emotional intelligence and/or lack of socialization.

I do the same thing as this girl–no response–both to give a subtle signal of rejection rather than outright cruel rejection, and to avoid inflaming a potentially crazy person. If you engage them, they will stalk; so to me the better risk/reward decision is to not respond at all. For those of you that can’t catch subtle social cues, get some self help books instead of whining that you are constantly “led on.” The only thing consistent in your being “led on” time and again is you.

That brought two responses and an ensuing argument:

WilliAMnot on December 8th, 2011 at 12:21 am:

ambidextrous – I signed on because of you! First of all I do think this guy is totally clueless, and what he wrote is seriously mind boggling, but I really think that all you girls out there who can’t simply tell a guy that you’re not interested in him, are simply too weak and a bit pathetic in not doing so. There is something called “common courtesy” and it’s something that a lot of women these days have very little of. Most of you end up old and unattractive anyways, and tend to just look for money douches like this guy in the end. It happens all too often. Bottom line, if you are willing to go on a date with someone, and he pays and all that crap, then you DO at least owe him an answer to his phone call or at least an email – just one time. That is what they used to call manners. You should try it next time instead of being so self centered and insensitive to fellow human beings.

tammie2412 on December 8th, 2011 at 7:59 am:

I agree with @bobat & @blackrose on this one. If she didn’t like the guy, why did she let him pay for dinner?? @ambilextrous says she was just being polite, come on! How polite is someone who: A) is 30 minutes late for a 1st date (or any date for that matter) & B) can’t be bothered to return someone’s texts or phone calls. Googling someone for their email address in this day & age is no different than looking up someone’s address & phone number in the phone book was 20 years ago. Not even close to “stalking”. The guy needed closure. Ok, he was a bitcheesy & weird about it. But, if she wouldn’t have been an immature bitch about the situation to begin with, he probably would have never sent any email. She should’ve answered his calls or texts & been polite/friendly but clear & honest. Someone said she didn’t owe him anything. But as decent human beings, (especially if we begin an online friendship) if we go out with people – we do owe them common decency & a returned phone call or text saying yes, I’m interested or no, I’m not into anything romantically, but I’d love to be friends, or there’s just no chemistry/nothing in common, thank you for your time, dinner, etc but this isn’t going to work out. How long can that phone conversation or text take? 5 – 10 minutes tops. If you aren’t willing to take that much time out to set someone’s mind at ease or help them a bit after a date, than you should really rethink what’s important in life & especially the way you treat others!

Finally, the comments section ends with one LarryS, a mangina who seems to have felt the need to comment on various forums about the issue in defense of the female, despite saying that females reject him a lot via the radio silence routine and it’s “very frustrating not having closure”:

LarryS on December 8th, 2011 at 9:10 pm:

I’ve unfortunately been out on a number of dates where things seem to go well but the other person decided that they don’t want to see me again. Sometimes it’s very frustrating not having closure. Regardless, this situation with Mike goes far beyond just asking for a second chance. It smacks of desperation – the message refers to an email and text messages – plural – which means he contacted Lauren at least three times. That’s two too many, and I hope that Lauren reports this stalker-ish behavior to the dating site where they met (if that was the case) so they are aware that they have a problem on their hands. Mike obviously has bigger issues than his inability to connect with someone…

If it’s so frustrating that the Manhattan women aren’t polite enough to respond to you after a date Larry, why do you go out of your way to defend this entitled behavior on various New York City forums?

Note how easy it could be for beginner PUAs themselves to side totally with the females in these stories. All they have to do is think “The guys weren’t alpha” and vindicate the females in the process.

As the economy tanks, you’ll see women clinging even more rigorously to the traditional model. This will be a class fragmentation: White, middle-class (feminist?) women will be getting married and resisting any attempt to reform anti-male divorce laws: the point of marriage from the female perspective is lifetime provisioning. Anything that threatens that – men unwilling to marry (hence shame them into it), divorce law reform at the pressure of mens’ groups (fall back on traditional values like retreating soldiers rallying around their leader)– will be rejected.

Just watch. You’re about to start hearing trumpets and calls for a return to “sane” marriage politics and the improvement of marriage in America – *from women*. En masse.

This is women guarding their collective asses.

Any talk about reform of marriage and contract marriages and whatnot will be all fine and good for the Blacks and the Lower Classes – but just see what college-educated women espouse.

When push comes to shove, these hypocrites do the equivalent of fleeing the cities to the suburbs, every time.

If men were smart, which they’re not, they’d avoid being the meatbags and tools the women treat them as and would take the women at their word: and reform the laws to serve the Proles.

Get rid of marriage. Introduce enforceable, private contracts.

And get reliable male birth control. It’s much better to say to women: I don’t want to have kids yet. I had a (100% reversible operation). If you want to have kids, I may consider it in the future.

Once we have kids, we need to draw up a contract on how they’re raised and who is responsible for X and Y. Sure it can be renegotiated, but the terms of the contract will stipulate all obligations.

This “implicit contract” the Femmocracy enforces on men – because there’s no male interest of any kind in it any more, a fact some women are beginning to lament as they become 2nd wives to tortured divorced men or men aren’t willing to marry them or sire children – is one of these tools of the state. It’s variably enforceable, subject to alteration at one party’s whim and designed to fleece the goose as much as possible.

Fuck marriage. Take feminists at their words.

The video above is one of those wonderful Newspeak ideas that we should take and absorb.

Guru telling women just to do what comes naturally, be free, and hook up with guys without guilt, because this is EMANCIPATION. And for men to stop slut-shaming women.

Whenever some woman says – “Hey, I don’t like this random sex thing and you just fooling around and having other partners”, then you say:
“I am a feminist and I believe in emancipation of women. You should be free, not bound to any one man. You want to be someone’s property? You want some man to shame you because you just went to bed with me? No way. Be free! Free, baby!”

Freedom! Horrible freedom!

I say set the women free. Men: Stop trying to corral the women. We’ve lost control of the situation. The bonus when the cows get out of the pen is this:

You can stop giving a shit about the cows. Let them wander anywhere they want to go. You go and milk them wherever they are. Then you don’t need to worry about production quotas or whatever: You just take the milk you want and bail.

Fuck’em. They broke the deal.

I say give women every ounce of freedom it’s possible to give them.

Incidentally, now we can *shame* them for wanting to enslave themselves.

“What? You want me to marry you? What kind of neanderthal woman are you? You want to have any part in that wretched, evil institution? No way. I would never disrespect you by signing you up to lifetime bondage.”

You can fuck your way through all the women this way, and when they complain, call them anti-feminist reactionary self-haters. You’ll have more ideological ammunition for your free sex mantra than you could possibly ever need.

You get to quote all the great feminist scholars and

We can make women live up to their words.

Which is why you’re going to see a massive movement of middle-class white and Asian feminists against anything remotely resembling this kind of radical feminism. It’s already started. Expect it to pick up steam.

It was all fine and good when you had all the rights but none of the new responsibilities. But when the bill comes due, I guarantee you women won’t ant to pony up the responsibility for the freedom. They’re going to (pretend) that they’re surrendering the freedom.

What we men need to understand is that this is a culture-wide negotiation. And this time, beaten, bloody men have the trump cards.

The women, these sirens of pretty words, are going to come out and invite us back.

Secession of the Plebs, people.

Just say no. Use their own words, much like the guy in this video. You can see the eyes of the people watching him in the video. Are their brains processing the implications of what he’s saying?

Stop treating women like partners in waiting. Start treating them exactly as they claim they want to be treated. As Equals.

Give them not an inch more.

Demand they be equals, in every way, and you know exactly what will happen.

They’ll squirm under the klieg lights of reality like fish on a bicycle trying to get it to move.

The only complainants throughout this whole process have been the 80% of women who have never, ever bought into the larger revolutionary struggle of feminism. They never did, not in the 60’s, the 70’s or the 80’s, not even in the retro 90’s or even today. The biggest counter-revolutionaries have always been other women. The biggest enemies of radical socialist reform and feminism have always been other women: they steadfastly refuse to get on board. They take all the privileges they get, and still expect to hold men up to the same standards. There are no end of women I know who are deeply, powerfully resentful of feminism for destroying the profound privileges they once enjoyed. You hear this endlessly from the non-glitterati and regular janes.

When the conservative women beg for the men to return to the fold, especially those who availed themselves of the free buffet when the dinner was being paid for by someone else, and are now demanding that men become Manly Men and Take Charge and Be Responsible, say–

Hey, baby. I’m a New Age guy. See how sensitive I am? Wanna come over for movies and a good time?

Let them cry into their lattes.

When it goes for about 20 years or so, …

Then we renegotiate. If the women want their “Men” back, you just look at the terms men will be able to demand. Equality? Alrightey then. E-fucking-Quality here we come. Let’s get EQUALITY.
You can imagine the articles in the New York Times. You can probably write the headlines. There’s a generation or two of op-ed pieces in there.

I predict vast segments of the male population are about to Progressively ditch their traditional responsibilities and say – Hey. I’m a New Man. That old stuff isn’t for me. And the only complaints will come from women (and churches, but that’s just because churches are bastions of man-hatred and enslavement masquerading as partiarchy).

War? Hey, baby, fighting’s not for me. You know, you have the right to join the army! I support you! Get out there and fight those bad guys! You can catch those criminals! i want to have a nice, cushy office job working for the government! I believe in equality, baby!

Just watch.

Gird yourselves, men. Hold out. Fuck’em.

Obliging women to lie in the beds they make is the best possible solution to our negotiating woes.

Embrace your freedom, men. Oblige women to endure theirs. Shame the ones who fail to hold up and who want out. Push them back into the Freedom Lights and give them a Thumbs Up.

See who buckles first.

(as the ship burns)

I tell you. This is how you renegotiate with hypocrites and ideological snakes. make them drink their own tonic, force it down their throats as they gag, if necessary. When they cry, offer them more of their own snake oil.

When all is done, they won’t rise to the challenge. This much is clear. And we can set the terms, because at last, WE will have something THEY want.

So stop being pussies and go out and get some. Just be sure to put it back when you’re done with it.

Problem is, they will just increase the size of the already massive welfare state to pay for all that. We dont live in some libertarian society where people are free to be free without my having to subsidize their bastard offspring or abortions.

I often wonder if this was the sneaky plan of the cultural radicals all along.

Give the wommyn a series of benefits without responsibilities, and stiff the men for the bill. You just know most regular women are going to go along, because why not? And then poison the well, make Men hate the situation more, until–
Men walk out of the Traditional Mold and tell the women to Fuck Off.

I think a lot of conservative women have picked up on this, which explains the tenacity they have when clinging to older, less emancipatory gender roles. They know the cost, and want nothing to do with it – and they try to shame men into following. But I’ve noticed that most of the advocates for a “return” are other women, not men – there’s been a notable absence in the 90’s and 00’s of men spearheading this cause. In the 80’s there were a bunch of 50 year-old Patriarchy types all worried about Civilization, but they’re mostly retired.

So what we have now is basically a war between women for the soul of society. Men are incidental to both, but I think the radicals, the 1-4% who thought this scheme up, must have realized that their future allies would be these hapless, gormless men following their own best interests. Now, men say: Fuck that shit. All of it. I want no part of either scheme. Give me X-Box and free pussy and beer, and leave me alone.

The patchwork repairs by arch-conservatives aren’t going to work.

Some of these arch-conservatives are unusual: I call them conservatives because they espouse an essentially reactionary platform, though they don’t think this.

– anti-prostitution and prohibition types, which look and sounds precisely like conservative religious moralizing in every possible way, being anti-liberationist and anti-equality and anti-open-sexuality, and denying even the slightest agency on the part of women a la Patriarchy

– anti-foreign marriage types starting to sound awfully like hard-core racists and classists hiding behind “women’s rights” banners, no matter how their sophistry tries to play it

– “pro-Children” women who have shifted their calls for mass general welfare from husbands (who no longer have the funds) to other men (via the state), claiming Universal Interest because they Sprout the Next Generation, via things like Universal Daycare and Minimum Guaranteed Incomes and etc., all massively if not ruinously expensive and almost guaranteed to utterly destroy American productive capacity

– and religious conservatives / liberal ideologues, who are saying The End is Nigh. It’s an odd alliance of the creationist left and right, but an alliance nonetheless. Like the imprisonment and silencing of Galileo, liberals react in the same way when someone dares to contradict Orthodoxy.

Anyway, science is about to devastate them both, as we de-mystify the entire Human animal in a relentless and always accelerating process of scientific illumination. Once the scientific revolution got started, it totally blew away the miasma of nebulous mysticism that we relied on, killing the fairies and Adam and Eves and the myths all at once.

What christian scholars understand as Christianity and Christian history bears little or no relationship at all to what laypeople believe, actual Christian scholars having none of the literalist claptrap of the creationists and religious conservatives and saying things that might get them burned at the stake for heresy, which is odd considering they’re the ones who read Greek and parse the Scriptures and Christian history. Most Christians know next to nothing about their religion.

That same gap now exists in the Liberal left. The death of Gould was almost a foretelling, and perhaps a mercy to Gould, given where it’s going. Science, as it viciously demystifies the human animal, has decided that we are 1) genetic machines, largely programmed from birth within severely limiting constraints, 2) prone to genetic programs for most if not all characters as well as behaviors, like every other animal incidentally, realizing this was never rocket science on a basic level unless you were an ideological nutcase, and 3) that group and individual differences are both massive, and 4) We will soon be able to fully manipulate this genetic code and every other aspect of life for whatever agenda we wish to impose.

Liberals clinging to the old orthodoxy are both blind and ignorant of most of modern genetics and psychometrics and neurology and everything else. There are still liberal thinkers who reject Noam Chomsky’s creation of modern Linguistics and the mechanistic model for the learning of language – an obvious fact, something deniable only by the most ideologically blind (of whom I’ve met a large number).

These liberal creationists are doomed. It’s better to pity them.

But instead of going backwards, it’s incumbent on us to go forwards: The Radicals opened up a door to the Future and may not have realized where it was leading. Like all radical movements, radical feminism had as much potential to create terrifying dystopias as New Worlds.

I say fuck ’em. So what: They engineered this chaos.

Let the liberal orthodoxies consume themselves in impotent rage at the relentless march of science, as their vision of what it is to be human is crushed beyond all possible recognition. We don’t need to laugh at them. Their end is literally nigh.

All these people who champion blank slate politics and liberal fascism need to have their policies shoved down their throats. Science has already completely destroyed any intellectual or factual basis for their beliefs; these liberals are just as capable of totally destroying the “radical” foundations of their church as the Church Fathers were 500 years ago with their Indulgences (exemptions for Black America) and their Inquisitions (firing Harvard presidents for telling the supportable truth; chasing after ghost rapists a la Duke Lacrosse, like pursuing “Portuguese Jews” through the alleys of medieval Lisbon). Silencing the actual Thinkers and Seekers, like Copernicus, only to have a Galileo rise up and inspire a new generation, exactly as is happening now, as the tools to track stars (map the human genome) become cheap and freely available to counter-orthodoxy thinkers.

Let them run their course. Let them burn the books and start pogroms and wail and cry: The Liberal Creationists are doomed unless they literally kill all the sciences force their ideology into the halls of academe. They’ve done this about as much as they can; and they’re failing even as we speak. They can fool the Masses, but they can’t fool them for long.

Men, it’s time to strategically withdraw from the fight. Don’t listen or heed the call to arms these conservatives will put out: ignore it.

Defend your patch. Be wary and wise. Let the church burn the excommunicated. Shelter those you can, and endure.

By the time the liberal orthodoxies realize they’re poisoned their own social order and everything they have is nothing but a web of self-contradictory, unworkable lies, it will be too late for them. It may be too late now.

The next wave of liberals, I predict, will be hard-core Eugenics proponents who cobble something together from the entrails of this debate. They’ll adopt policies helter-skelter and will be nice or nasty depending on what specific pick-up-sticks are still standing when the shit stops flying.

Fuck lots of women and eschew any major responsibility. Do what the peasants did: ignore it. When the women cry out for rescue, offer them your dick and coffee in the morning.

This is the sum total that you owe them. They’re equals. Make them be equal.

; chasing after ghost rapists a la Duke Lacrosse, like pursuing “Portuguese Jews” through the alleys of medieval Lisbon

Only a Jew could reach this far and expect to be taken seriously. Very deft, yet laughably clumsy, attempt to chain modern politically korrekt witch-hunting with some forgotten “anti-Semitic” episode. The implication is that falsely accusing white men of raping a negress is equal to falsely accusing Jews of being meddlesome.

Jews are nowhere and never that. They’ve been chased through the alleys of medieval Lisbon. Goyim are absurd.

Tell us again why you believe white Gentiles are wrong for standing up for their ethnic interests, Gorb. I know being a Jew has nothing to do with it; so you won’t mind frankly stating that you are a Jew. Out with it, then.

Tell us why whites should meekly accept being replaced. By the way, what do you say to the idea that racism is irrelevant in a context of mass race-replacement?

I owe nothing to fat, aggressive selfish women who claim special claims on men because they’re white and protect the next generation. it’s exactly because they can claim that men are abandoning their (racial?) responsibilities by telling women – white women in this case – to fuck off – and then shame the men into putting up with their utter shittiness because it’s incumbent on the men to make up for this awful situation where there are no white babies and when there are, the fathers get utterly ass-raped – it’s our JOB to take it like a man and bend over and let women ram it right up our collective asses, or else Jews and Darkies will engineer the collapse of civilization.

Well, to this racial notion, I say: OK, am I a white male slave, meant to bend over and let women ream my ass with a fire-tipped poker, just so that another generation of female troglodytes can ass-rape my male grandchildren?

Fuck that.

If white women want to be shitty bastards, they can rot in singlehood and babylessness and wail into their $9 lattes as they wonder what the fuck happened to the Mens or they can find some big black Stud and get him to plant some babies in the things they insist on calling uteruses.

My loyalty is to me. And to the people I know. And my relatives. And to my own interests and to the women I wish to fuck. If it so happens that the only women who appear fuckable happen to not be American – ie, not fat angry cows on a socially pathological rampage – then I’ll happily court non-white women and occasionally fuck an American harpy if the moment moves me and she’s not disgustingly ugly.

But marry one out of racial loyalty?

This is why I can’t stand white nationalism as it most often advertises itself.

You go shame some other white guy into fucking for Race and Country. In fact, good luck with that. I’m sure all the beta males who need excuses for being wretched with women can happily fall back on racial loyalty when asked why they let some repulsive harpy throw them into a blender while she laughs all the way to the bank.

I hope your loyalty serves you well as modern post-equality triumphalist Feminism tries to shame you into racial loyalty.

When racialists stop using shaming language on men, men who should be independent, men whose sexual loyalty extends only to the ends of their own dicks, your anti-semitic shaming confabulatory nonsense, while intrinsically perhaps worth something for aboriginal white people under siege, is worth exactly this:

Nothing.

White racism will make slaves of white men unless we have the ability to collectively tell white American women to fuck off.

Advice I gave to white guys in the US long ago still stands. Get the fuck out. if you have any education, moxy or smarts, get the hell out of this country and start learning to appreciate foreign pussy, where your residual value overrides the princess complex of the womyns.

I do believe that the current wildness in the SMP was and is an experiment in cultural & social engineering, designed by certain cultural elites to create more of a lock on social power. There have been several articles about the support of feminism by the Rockefeller/Carnagie/Rothschild cabal in the early part of the last century. More recent, and striking evidence exists when examining the unholy alliance between Gloria Steinem and Henry Kissinger.

On a much longer timeline, I believe that species can act in concert on a subconscious level to further the interests of genetic strength and diversity. Such behavior is seen in canine pack behavior as well as in large primates.

In humans, using genetic behavioral psychology, we can understand the freedom with which females now possess to mate with the alpha males of their preference at will, regardless of relationship status as net boon to the gene pool, even as individual males (read:cuckolded betas) are inconvenienced (read:assraped).

Any social convention which results in more robust genetic conditions is likely a long-term benefit to humanity, stopping short of genocide and eugenics.

The Chateau views cuckoldry as the male equivalent to rape. While I concur, it is our responsibility as males to ensure that it doesn’t happen. It is an individual responsibility, the truest of the free markets. Marriage conventions are the sexual equivalent of marxism. Let us throw off these changes.

Men, be alpha & resist marriage. Don’t let your woman get impregnated by other alphas. Betas–study game. And if you do get cuckolded, realize that you’re taking one for the team.

I’d like to see a debate between King A & Gorby. It would probably be much like that one between Frost & Paul Elam. I suspect the results would be similar, though we might have a more nuanced discussion since both are technically pro-game, but King A believes game is for marriage, and Gorby believes marriage is shot.

I agree. But here’s why I’m perceived to be a dissident when in fact I am an ally.

We are in the chaos between cultures. The old institutions (feminism) are dying — and probably quickly collapsing. There will be a vacuum until new mores are (re)established. O tempora! O mores! Some short-sighted people believe the chaos is permanent because they grew up in chaos. An education in history and the classics is therefore indispensable for perspective. The whole evo-psych canard is still just a conjectural story, whereas art and literature allow the distillation of wisdom based on experience to be expressed in a form more effective than theory.

But you first have to understand that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Some problems are permanent, insoluble problems. Most of our disagreements will derive from this fundamental difference, that the human condition cannot be solved, it can only be managed, and crudely at that. It’s the difference between the American and French revolutions. It’s the difference between what Thomas Sowell called the “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions. I see the same dramatic cycle played out over the arc of several generations, whereas critics are convinced — without any real evidence — that “it’s different this time.” Therefore they do not bother so much with what came before and become influenced by conjectural stories which promise to predict what comes after.

When I write about what comes after the chaos, I am mistaken for utopianism or an insufficient grasp on reality. All kinds of disagreements are inferred from discussing the long view. I don’t disagree with most of what is written about here; I’m operating at a different elevation from the ground.

For most religions, including most flavors of Christianity, marriage is a vow or covenant between a man and a woman, for purposes of mutual content and providing for the children of that marriage.

In the legal systems of most countries, marriage is a legally binding contract, with consequences that follow from breaking that contract. If you and your spouse don’t agree in advance to the terms of that contract, and spell it out in writing, in the form of a valid contract, you get stuck with what the state provides for you.

In most states in the U.S., what the state provides is that the woman can break the contract at whatever time, and take away your children, and at least half of all your wealth.

In short, any man who has pretenses of playing game, considers marriage, and does not know the laws of marriage, contract, antenuptual agreements, and trust law, is just begging for the legalized gang rape that so amusingly goes by the name of ‘family law’ these days.

I think it’s more like the democrat party jealously sees the world population of 6 billion people not yet able to vote for them, so there’s really no reason for them to do anything but encourage amnesty and open borders. It’s not as if they value this country’s history or ideals. They just want power and they’ll flood the country with people to get that power.

[…] writes about marriage contracts in Mexico, which would expire after 2 years. We’ve had similar suggestions in Germany, but only by fringe politicians. For moral reasons, I would never leave my wife, nor would she leave me. However, most people don’t share my moral convictions, as can be seen everywhere. Since I don’t want to force people to adhere to my moral standards, I do think a complete withdrawal of marriage law is a good idea. Let people come up with their own contracts, enforceable by courts like any other contract. (And for a change, actually make contracts enforceable.) Like every other thing, wedding ceremonies are better done privately (in your Church, Synagogue, Demon summon circle) than by the state. […]

i saw this coming. mexicos capital is full of uber ugly women, and full of powerfull rich men. this men in the past 10 years, went to countries like venezuela,colombia, brazil , and argentina, to meet their significant others,all hot babes , wiht degrees. suddenly this chicks got to mexico and felt lonely , taking care of children, or just staying at home. problems arrived,, mexican mothers are known for being harsh to inlaws, divorces in this couples are abundant. so the south american babe got back home or to miami with a whole bunch of money. a few of the colombian ones who had no children got back to my low wage cock, while their omega ex taco husband ,would be on a trip to hunt for another and repeat the adventure again.

But this “leave society to it’s fate” stuff is the sort of short-term crap that far too many alphas have been doing for the last 50 years.

Instead of using their power and influence with women to try to rein in the feminist rampage against society, they chose to “plough” their own furrow. So in the final analysis they’re like Switzerland in WWII, profiting from the crucifixion of the average beta male.

So their comments on womens nature are wise and perceptive, but their comments on society, marriage and the family are selfish and myopic. Being a libertine 200 years ago took balls. Nowadays, every bum in the street spouts the same “I will no serve” tripe. Not cool, and sure as hell not original.

Avoid marriage if you want, but please don’t snipe at the men who are trying to rebuild our society. Otherwise, you’re just the hired goons of the misandrist movement

Since divorce culture is driven by primal human behaviors, specifically primal female behaviors, the law which is trying to do an end run around those behaviors will ont be effective.

Instead the contract period will simply serve as an extended engagement, and indeed will merely replace what would have been extended engagements and live-in arrangements.

The wifey will just wait until the two year period is up and you’ve signed over your soul for life before she starts lording over you and threatening you with financial oblivion if things don’t go her way. The divorce rate will remain extremely high, and may even go up, because now you’re calling an extended engagement a “marriage” and there will be more internal and external pressure for a man not to abandon his “wife”.

‘Tis hard overcoming the urge to possess long-term though. What all this amounts to is sexual nomadism. That would be fine if we were real nomads, but we are still sedentary, and tangible possession is the primary urge of the settled; the town built around the grain store is a living monument to tangible property.

I guess this is why the alphas who can afford it recommend a nomadic lifestyle. Roosh has it going.

Sexual nomadism. What a great conceptual handle.

I wonder if it’s a coincidence that I’ve lived a nomadic lifestyle for most all my adult life. I’ve always felt very happy leaving places. I’ve lived for years at a time in a trailer house on wheels parked in large open spaces near the city, when not on the road. And I usually stay only a year or two in a city here in SE Asia.

You’ve got me wondering if nomadism could be a personality trait.

The BBC show on twins was on again last night. Wow, that show hits hard as to how some traits are hard wired. Its freaky the first time you watch it, freaky the second time, and still freaky the third.

But this “leave society to it’s fate” stuff is the sort of short-term crap that far too many alphas have been doing for the last 50 years.

Avoid marriage if you want, but please don’t snipe at the men who are trying to rebuild our society. Otherwise, you’re just the hired goons of the misandrist movement

Okay I get it: Save society etc. But this sounds about as sensible as the WN racists who say: Fuck all the non-white pussy you want, but make babies with good white women, because you owe it to your race.

I can see the point but again, why should I sacrifice my life for a bunch of utterly unsympathetic and crassly selfish shamers, ie white American women?

Go ahead and rebuild civilization. I ask you this: Exactly how much appreciation will white women or women in general give you for your tireless and strenuous efforts?

They’ll divorce you or fuck around on you – as they’ve done with me – without the slightest bit of remorse.

You want to serve society, fine. But you should know, women may talk as if they respect you but they treat you (in aggregate) like helpless dupes ripe for the pickings.

Just look at how the laws have been framed. Soon, they’ll be suggesting they just put men in pens and make them work and labor for the benefit of women, who get to pick from among them as they choose and then throw them away.

Instead of just informally setting up society this way – as we have right now – they’ll formalize it.

Just wait.

White knighting for these trollops and fascist masters? I’d prefer to see it how it is, and see enemies for what they are.

When women decide they want to be partners in life they can apply and line up like everyone else.

Until then, I’ll be sure to smash their little princess tiaras whenever it’s convenient for me.

And I strongly advise other men to do the same, out of self-preservation if nothing else.

Don’t compare catholics of yore with your fucked up anglo protestants. The cases you describe were a minority (15%-25% of all marriages) while in your protestant populations disfunction was always the norm. It`s not a coincidence that Sexual Revolution and Feminism the greatest Shit test in human history came from the Anglosphere, not from Europe or anywhere elese.”

The sexual revolution and feminism were foisted upon the west by European Jews, youre out of your element Donnie.